For me when you come into your kingdom. And he said today you will be with me and carry guns. I got to share the gospel with one man with a very one sentence before he passed the next day I do not know I just said to this man one of the most brilliant man I have ever been around. One of the most brilliant mathematicians I didn't get around. You may come to Jesus Christ on your bed right now. So anybody under the sun in my voice that has never accepted the Lord Jesus Christ I would ask you that you make about your head and say to the Lord I want you miss my Lord and Savior and you who are Christians that's really thank God that that curtain was split in 2 and it's never going to be there again. As great. Lord we thank you for all. The clarity of that word the veracity of it. Let this picture. Explode like your brother need around us that we see the light from the cross in a different way never seen it. It is finished Thank you Jesus. We hope that you've enjoyed this sermon with Pastor Charles Williams from Lublin Bible Church 400 North Adams downtown Loveland or Loveland Bible Church dot org And there's a new fitness center in town and they have the answer to getting you in the gym and getting you to your goal boss of fitness is located at 232523rd Avenue on the corner reservoir road and 23rd Avenue right next to Dicky's barbecue pit they offer the newest machines and techniques so help you succeed but it's not just because they offer aerobics group exercise cardio and spin classes or across functional training area a fitness cinema basketball racquetball courts or a freeway area or is it because they have hydro massage beds indoor pool Jacuzzi steam room and sonatina beds or that they offer daycare it's because they are certified staff care and they want you healthy and they can provide you with personal training Vasa where they uplift everyone through fun happy fitness 232523rd Avenue phone number 356-8272. Go Greeley Warren Yoder here from Weld County 2017 is here and so are the new 2017 Buicks and g.m.c. He's one of my personal favorites is the Buick and vision from the refined interior to the sleek exteriors to the way the car drives and handles We are proud to offer this new s.u.v. From Buick you can't go wrong with any of our new g.m.c. Or Buick models Weld County grudge locative Highway 34 and 47th Avenue when we. Get into. The really Colorado USA summit Ministries is an education system ministry whose very existence is a response to our current post Christian culture today countless Christian youth have fallen victim to the popular ideas. Our modern world and our modern school system summit ministries 86678664838667866483 Summit ministries in Manitoba Springs is most well known for their intense 2 week intellectual courses here now is one lecture from one of those 2 we camps. Are going to in this afternoon and I'd like to recommend 3 books that we carry in the bookstore they have been very useful in my own studies and one of them was very important early on after I became a Christian. Soon after I became a Christian in 1907 I changed my major from music to philosophy. And I was the only Christian who was a philosophy major at the university and one of the 1st classes that I took was a class and philosophy of religion and in that class the professor spent the 1st 2 weeks trying to show that the Biblical gospels were unreliable. Soon thereafter I took another course called history and thought of the New Testament which was neither history nor thought of the New Testament the professor was a very liberal Presbyterian minister and I'm pretty sure that on half of the days of the week he was Nate d.s. And the other half of the time he was a new ager he was extremely confused one day he confided in me and he said Kevin you know we should get together sometime and talk about things I'd like to tell you what I think Alice. And I said my wife why don't you just tell me here and. And he said I think we're there. And I think that unbeknownst to him he was he was under the wrath of God for his unbelief. But what was interesting is all the way through his course he tried to date the did look to Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John as very late productions Thirdly late in the 1st century if not early in the 2nd century. And so early on I began studying these issues in the book that was the most important book of my own study is this book by Craig Lomborg entitled The historical reliability of the gospels the historical reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blumberg it's an excellent single on the subject probably the best single volume on the subject. The book is not easy to read in every every section of every chapter because he has to deal with our critical the Allah or the recent methodology and so he addresses those and he has to so the historical reliability of the Gospel is another book by Craig that he's come out with recently is this one it's called Jesus and the Gospels an introduction and survey and this is more like a textbook a college or seminary textbook it's a very excellent book tell Craig Lomborg just so you may know is Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary about an hour north of here an excellent book good friend of mine one of the smartest guys I know he's really brilliant he's got a pastor's heart the 3rd volume I would recommend is this small paperback called Jesus under fire Jesus under fire edited by Wilkinson Moreland and it's a phenomenal compilation of essays by a leading edge evangelical scholars addressing all sorts of issues from when to Jesus really stated what do you. Jesus Really Do you are the gospels basically reliable when well about miracles what about the resurrection what about religious pluralism those types of questions are addressed in this book Jesus under fire with copies of this in the bookstore and we have copies of this in the bookstore and I just found out this is the last copy that we have of this in the bookstore and it's actually on sale for 50 bucks just getting. Sunset for $15.00. So I want to recommend those things also when you know what you most likely have backseat on maybe it's the historic of the liability of the gospels of the it's received Jesus something like that and I'm not actually you'll find reference to a number of other books that that I think are useful for the Study of the history city of Jesus let's pray and we'll get started with if you want. Father We again thank you that you have graced us with salvation we thank you that you have seen fit to invest your spirit in us that mean we might be transformed. Into the image of your son and that we might bring glory to you. Father as we prayed earlier so now we pray again. Enable us to be confident as we can fast and proclaim the name of Jesus in the world today. Please give a shout mines help us to be discerning as your disciples as we consider the history city of Jesus in the reliability of the Gospels. And may all glory and honor be yours because of your loving your faithfulness. In Christ's ever holy name we pray. I've already began by telling you to a bit about my experiences what I found fascinating is soon after I became a Christian I had a problem in the music department because my percussion advisor grew up playing the drums and I was there on a scholarship and was having a blast but my advisor in the music department was a Mormon bishop so when I became a Christian and I began talking with people he didn't like the fact that I was talking to his son who was also in the percussion section and his son was preparing to go on a mission. And so I think some political issues there but I took my 1st philosophy class philosophy one on one and I fell in love with it because I realised that people live and die based on what they believe and I wanted to know the truth I wanted to know how to know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In taking these philosophy classes I noted that I took a class on philosophy religion which strangely enough we were talking about arguments for God's existence and such but the professor determined to begin the course by investing 2 weeks in trying to show that the gospels were not reliable. And should be rejected in terms of any type of religious or spiritual authorities. And soon thereafter I took a class on the historic history and thought of the New Testament. Which I came to find out was just a great introduction to unbelieving higher critical theories it was quite fascinating to face that when I found is that at the end of that course which was an evening course meant Tuesdays and Thursdays for an hour and a happy cheating at the end of that quarter everyone in the class had to either present a paper or a presentation. And I decided that I wanted to do a presentation. And so I know I presented material to show that the political gospels were historically reliable that we have good reasons to believe that and we have reasons to believe that miracles do happen one of the working assumptions of higher critics is that miracles don't happen so miracles don't happen and then what do you do with these miracle stories in the Gospels they're just productions of the early disciples just made up stories trying to justify their own actions. Well at the end of my presentation and we were given about 20 minutes each to present and we're supposed to answer some questions. At the end of my presentation my professor Professor Wiemer got very tight and he said you're going to answer questions now and I think I said Ok I'll do my best I don't know everything this is new stuff to me but I've covered the material as best I could and he said you believe that miracles happen and I said you know what I do I think we have good reasons for believing that miracles happen and I don't see any good reasons for saying that they don't he said I like you believe that which is a staff. And this point one of the funniest things happen in the older woman in the class just cut into our conversation said Professor Wiener I have 2 friends who are witches. And that changed the whole tenor of our discussion. Professor Wimmera lost track of the time and actually instead of having 2 students present that evening he gave me the whole 90 minutes and it was quite fascinating it was a very challenging and eye opening experience what I'd like to do is share a bit of that material with you but I'd like to preface it by talking about the Jesus Seminar. Who exactly is the Jesus Seminar. Now the information I'll be presenting is a bit dated I'm sure the statistics could be updated just a bit but the Jesus Seminar. In the past was comprised of 74 seminar fellows. Of these 74 people in the Jesus Seminar. 13 of them and leading scholars in the field of New Testament studies in the historical Jesus. 13 out of $74.00 are leading scholars in the field another 20 have published in the field but are not leaders in the field which means they published one or 2 articles maybe. Of the remaining $30.00 and $1.00 half of the seminar style of a fairly 18 of them have written nothing relevant to the field of New Testament Studies at all. But one of the fascinating things about those who make up the Jesus Seminar is that over half of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar have degrees from 3 very important institutions have heard Claremont and Vanderbilt. These schools have some of the most liberal reputations in the history of the discipline. Another not Servatius this seminar is comprised almost exclusively of Americans European hollar scholarship is hardly represented at all. How many if you're familiar with the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar is a group of $74.00 scholars who get together and in the past they voted on each one of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels they grew distant whether or not that saying from Jesus was authentic Plaza Paul implausible or inauthentic and they graded by using different colors of marbles as they as they considered these things and then the published a book called The 5 Gospels edited by Robert funk primarily. And the final Gospels do it does anyone know what the 5th Gospel is. The Gospel of Thomas So they have Matthew Mark Luke and John and Thomas. The Castle of Thomas is a 2nd century production some of them try to argue with the 1st century production but their arguments are very circular and untethered to historical details but the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century production I believe it has 114 sayings attributed to Jesus presented back to back virtually without historical narrative what this means is that it's like a collection of sayings it's not like one of the biblical gospels that has narrative and sayings and narrative and sayings and and so on. It's a text that's clearly influenced by a gnostic mentality Gnosticism was an early Hennesy that attached itself to Christianity but seems even predated some of it seem to have predated the 1st century a bit. But Gnosticism taught that that in the beginning God created everything but then a demi god created the physical universe and that was bad and we are now encased in the physical universe and the way that we can have salvation is to be released from our physical bondage and have spiritual enlightenment and separation from the physical world. Can we get a chance to read the Gospel of Thomas I think you would find it very interesting because some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas a lifted right out of the canonical gospels some of them go awfully strange in fact I believe it's the very last saying says that if a woman wants to enter the Kingdom of God she must become as if she were a man. Of course that's true isn't it now it's not. Yet what's fascinating is people are trying to tout the Gospel of Thomas as spiritual and religious liberating Well I've talked about what the constituency is of the Jesus Seminar and even though I've noticed that the vast majority of people in the seminar have nothing really to do in the field of New Testament studies that contributed nothing significantly to it and many of them are not trained in the field at all some of them are script writers for Hollywood. But one of these facts not mean. The fact is the Jesus Seminar has been very public in their productions they're trying to sway the popular opinion by by having huge media galas as they produced these works trying to conjure up. A kind of an expansive understanding and and a public promotion of their positions. What this means is that the average person who reads a newspaper or a Time magazine or u.s. News and World Report and they read an article that's about Jesus chances are they're going to be hearing from the Jesus Seminar. How many if you saw the series on p.b.s. From Jesus to Christ from Jesus to the christ I think it was on p.b.s. If you did that was virtually a Jesus Seminar production. Gave you some idea of their perspective and how they think about these things that's also important about how to describe these folks is that it's we must appreciate the fact that while they are some of the most vocal people writing on this subject they are not participants in mainstream scholarship they are viewed as wacko by the vast majority of even liberals in New Testament scholarship the liberals recognize that the productions of The Cheese system in our have very little tethering to either history or good reason. Yes. Now we have the Gospel of Thomas we have the actual gospel of thomas we found it in what is called not Hamadi. It's participates in a body of literature that's known as gnostic literature we can talk more about that afterwards if you like now it's not like you and I'll talk about you in just a minute you know q. From Star Trek never mind. The fact is we must take the Jesus Seminar seriously if for no other reason than their ideas are so prominently propagated in the media and so they must be dealt with. Now as we as Christians think about the reliability of the Bible there are 3 standard tests for the reliability that we usually refer to the 1st one is called the Big League radical test and the deadly graphical test talks about the number of scripts that we have available the fact is we know we don't have today the original writing of Matthew and we don't have today the original binding of Paul in fact we have none of the Biblical texts in their original form meaning we have none of the. Called the Agartha the hand written copies or the original handwritten pieces those are gone they disintegrated long a long time ago but we have today as we have copies of those things and we have copies of copies of those things and we have copies of copies of copies of copies of those things and so on and so forth. And so on to look at the people even after the test we look at how many copies do we have that are handwritten copies prior to the printing press and then also we look at how close this copies are to the original documents the proximity to the a toggle. To the original productions and. I'm going to detail on this but the New Testament gospels actually fared very well in the study when you look at the number of manuscripts that we have we have thousands of different copies or pieces of manuscripts and the proximity can range. Well as little as 100 years sometimes even less in some cases some have proposed the 2nd test is what is called the internal evidence tast the internal evidence tast looks at the claims of my witness testimony and also looks to examine whether or not that testimony is coherent and consistent Just because you have people giving a testimony doesn't mean that you're better off because you could actually have divergent testimony people don't agree there are contradictions and such. Some of the passages that illustrate a claim to eyewitness testimony would be d.s. Considered jotting down Luke chapter one versus one through 4. Look at these things Luke chapter one versus one through 4 2nd Peter chapter one verse 616. Second Peter 116 and John actually 1st John chapter one verse is one through 3. So we have Luke chapter members this one through 4 2nd Peter chuck of one wrist 16 and 1st John chapter one verse as one through 3 these passages illustrate the fact that these authors believed that there were eyewitness testimonies in fact that they were one of them. The 3rd test is what is called the extra 11 Stastny in here's where we get into such things as archaeology and geography and none Biblical textual sources such as Josephus or Tacitus other things we try to find a residue in the 1st century outside the Bible that speaks of the same things whether that residue is in a mound of dirt or a city block or whether the residue is looking over a certain area and seeing that the course of description of someone so straddles actually matches up with the geography of the land. So we have the ability graphical test the internal evidence test and the actual evidence task and if you want more information about these things there are 2 places I would direct you one is you can always turn to Josh McDaniels classic book Evidence of a man's a birthday and he's got some good stuff in there some of that I struggle with but he's got some good stuff in there none the last the 2nd place I would recommend that you turn is a book called scaling the secular city by j.p. Moreland and he has an excellent single chapter on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Scaling the secular city. Scaling the secular city by Moreland. I don't want to talk about the standard test because most books on the subject deal with these in great detail what I'd like to do is have us think a bit more deeply about telltale signs of historicity that are embedded in the Gospels. So let's consider them on its. Initial history city. So much of initial history city and the 1st mark of initial history city is what it's called beg your city diversity the fact is embedded in the New Testament is not just one gospel but where Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John and these gospels have buried elements it's not simply one gospel other after copying the other gospel out there beta these now they may share a common source is an mmog may have read Mark and such because Luke says in Luke chapter one that he used other sources. They don't agree one with another in every detail it doesn't mean that they contradict but they do not agree in every detail the point being there is diversity of presentation diversity of testimony this is an initial mark of historicity I would suspect that if Christians simply wanted to make up a straw you would want it to be just one person because then you don't have to worry about the alleged contradictions between the gospels and such but we still we have to we have to face those realities that the gospels are difficult to harmonize and certain places. A 2nd mark of history city is what I call embarrassment embarrassment. With regards to the Apostles just consider the fact that these were the early leaders of the Christian church and yet they are prayed consistently in the Gospels. They are consistently portrayed as being slow to understand. And when you look at the gospel records of the n.t. Tune of human Jesus fascinatingly nothing records women going to the empty tomb 1st . And that's so much problematic because in the 1st century it women's testimony is not viewed as credible as a man's testimony. And yet the the biblical consuls didn't ever look that are they they overlook that social reality and they retain the history of the women going to the tomb 1st anyway. But another example of the Apostles embarrassment would be Jesus is rebuke of Peter consider this and Matthew Chapter 16. Now Chapter 16 a fascinating thing occurs. Matthew Chapter 16 beginning at verse $21.00 be read from that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders chief priests and teachers of the law and then he must be killed and on the 3rd day be raised to life . Peter took him aside to begin to rebuke him never lord he said this shall never happen to you and. This is where Peter Sr Jesus by the way Peter begins to rebuke Jesus never Lord distill never happen to you then Jesus turned and said to Peter Get Behind Me Satan. You were a stumbling block to me you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men what's fascinating here is that Peter is clearly the lead apostle in the Gospel accounts and even beyond He's clearly the lead apostle and yet he's the one who seems to do all that he could rebuke Jesus to the point of Jesus calling him Satan. And by the way this is not Jesus talking to Satan the city says talking to Peter and calling Peter a name because Peter had become Jesus is adversary read right there in the Texas' Jesus turn and said to Peter Get Behind Me Satan he is speaking to Peter and calling Peter a name and that makes perfectly good sense because earlier he had just given Peter a new name that was Peter's original name. Simon So earlier in this passage Jesus gives Peter a new name and that name is Peter and he says on this rock I build my church and he says this testimony that you have is from God and not from men but there is an ironic reversal that happens in this passage where Peter rebukes Jesus instead of confessing Him And Jesus as you have not in my the things of God but the things of man and the counseling a scandal on a stumbling block and start of a path for us and then gives in the name Satan. Very interesting. But these are I'm going to sing elements I would suspect that if the early church really wanted presented a persuasive narrative they would have excluded some of these things because we're good bothered by these things from time to time these are not the easiest passages to understand consider some others with reference to Jesus and not Chapter 6 this is funny through 6 G.'s This is unable to heal. What Jesus is unable to heal I thought he was the Lord of the universe what do you mean he was unable to heal well read the passage Mark Chapter 6 persist fly through 6 it's a tad bit embarrassing Christian apologist throughout the ages have tried to conjure up answers to this issue and some of the answers are good some of them are not so good considering month Chapter 10 best 18 were Jesus says Why do you come we good. Some people have wondered why now is Jesus saying that he's not good. This is somewhat difficult consider the opposition of Jesus is on family recorded in March chapter 3 verse 21. In my chapter 3 verse 21 his whole family says that Jesus is crazy. You consider that his baptism by John Lennon John come preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Why was Jesus back Christ by John Was he a sinner. Well this is then so much confusing because John time and time again is understood to have a baptism for the remission of sins and yet Jesus wasn't sinful So what exactly is going on there well it's somewhat difficult the fact is these are the so-called hard passages and I suspect that if you were I were writing the biblical gospels today we would leave out the hard passages. Because we don't like him very much they're tough they're difficult. Like one. Of. The really you know. We. Don't add to my word. But you would think that the would leave anything out that would have some bearing on them in other words if someone is trying to add to the gospels and such. Well you know what the fact is people have tried to we have textual evidence of people adding to the gospels and trying to explain some of these hard passages. We actually find those things inscribe all marginal notes of early copies of the Bible explanations and sometimes later scribes just forget about this and they move those marginal knowledge into the text itself so we find additions to the text and so as we do what is called textual criticism we actually find out where those additions came in and the history of those taxes very fascinating but. These pensive trying to find answers so they've tried to blow these things out of proportion consider the the Gnostic Gospels if you look at the miracles of Jesus found in the canonical gospels and compare them with the miracles of Jesus allegedly found in the Gnostic gospels you find something qualitatively different in the Gnostic gospels Jesus is portrayed as a young man who in the playground is slapped on the back by a friend running by him and Jesus turns around and curses the boy who then falls and dies. Consider this Jesus goes out to the bank of the river and through some birds from the mud in the river and Blair's on them they come to life and fly away . With you what's the pain of this I submit you if you look at the Biblical canonical miracles if you look at the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels they illustrate his nature and his mission they are content oriented living our living parables of who God is and what God wants. But in the in the canonical gospels and then Gnostic gospels we have Jesus appearing 300 feet tall. What's the point of that it's very uncharacteristic when compared to the miracles recorded in the canonical gospels Let's talk about the historical reconstruction of the critics I've noted on the matter that here we have 30 a.d. Where it's approximately the date when Jesus died by the way Jesus wasn't born in 0 Jesus was probably born in somewhere between 4 and 8 b.c. According to our calendar that's because we made our calendar up in the guy who made it up got it off a little bit. But Jesus died approximately 30 a.d. And then we have the destruction of Jerusalem in 78 so let's talk about how these critics understand the early history of Christianity. First of all is that just prior to 30 already when Jesus was killed if in fact even granted Jesus existed and was killed this is Jesus spoke of variety of things around the countryside and these things were disadvantaged from each other they were not connected in historical narrative they were usually viewed as wisdom sayings controverted Zen koans many of these guys portrayed Jesus is a buddhist zen master and it's really strange how they do that but Jesus went around Jesus meek and mild and the countryside presenting things upset it a few people but really had no good reason for upsetting all that many people after he died his disciples put these things into a collection actually a series of collections and these series of collections and contain comparable sayings maybe they're miracle stories maybe they're wisdom sayings maybe or some other kind of same comfort kind of saying this is the time period you can see this Kenya. This is the time period in which they believe that a document called Q Was produced I'm sorry it's written so long I can't do anything about it but a document called Cuil this is for the German word. I think it's how it's pronounced on and I don't know any German. Hitler I know Hitler maybe. But it's the German word credit meaning source and so the idea that this is Cuba is one of these sayings sources it's a saying. Source. And some people will say that and I'll explain with us here in just a few moments for those of you're not familiar with this bear with me for a minute be patient I think you'll see the big picture in a few moments. He was one of the same sources it contains some of the sayings of Jesus but without historical narrative these critics actually propose that the early sayings of Jesus usually were not counted in historical narratives by the early Christians. Now also what about this time you would have the beginning of what is called palm line Christianity. And Palau and Christianity. Telling Christianity grows in influence and stature draft the rest of the 1st century. But the canonical gospels are not written just yet and many of them what propels that the canonical gospels are written significantly later Take for example Mark maybe written. About 6567 maybe 6980. And then you have out here in about 8580. And 8580 you have Matthew. Matthew's gospel and you also have Luke's gospel. And then all of the way out and about 9080 you have John's Gospel. Ok So Matthew and Luke come on the scene in the gospels about $8580.00 they don't believe that Matthew wrote it they don't believe Luke wrote it they don't believe that Mark wrote it then I believe that John wrote it none of these guys actually wrote it it was someone else who just made it up and attributed to the apostles. But these things were written much later and why would they have this belief can anyone tell me the fundamental fundamental issue that relates to 70 a d. . And why would they say that the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Because there are prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem the fact is the higher critics presuppose that miracles cannot happen and that miracles cannot happen when you have prophecy prophecy is a miracle and since Prophecy can't really be prophecy because miracles don't happen there are these prophecies must have been written after the fact and said the same new place Mark 370 because they think that Mark's description of the judgement on under Islam is not quite as explicit as it needed to be written after the fact many of them will actually place mark on the other side. And say he wrote after the fact of the destruction of them as while this is a key point. They believe that prophecy is miraculous and miracles don't happen so that which looks like prophecy is actually history written after the fact just written in a way so it sounds like it is prophecy that makes sense. This is essential to understanding this. Issue. Now let's deal with the presuppositions of the critics. Not of the presuppositions of the critics here 1st of badly Octon talk about early Christian prophets. They have certain decisions regarding early Christian prophets. And these critics will say that these early Christian prophets were charismatics folks then embedded in the various Christian congregations and all of the way throughout this era here on these Christian property even beyond. The Christian prophets. Stand in the congregation and say that they are Jesus says. And then they will convey a saying of Jesus and what happened is some author or group of authors out in this area takes these things. Takes these things from the Christian promise not from the historical Jesus Mind you they take these things from the Christian prophets and then they embed them in the narratives Matthew Mark Luke and John. In other words many of the things in the gospels Jesus never said not here. But the Christian prophets allegedly ascribed them to Jesus and these people then who wrote these narratives in Matthew Mark Luke and John what they say is they retro Jack to the words of Jesus coming through the prophets and read them back into this narrative and said Jesus actually said these things when he was walking and true salon for example can say well when it comes to the difficult Gospels this is one of the Jesus Seminar votes on these things to say whether or not Jesus said these things or some later Christian prophets maybe said these things that's one of their assumptions now there are difficulties with this is something in a crystal ball as you read through the New Testament you see the New Testament prophets actually distinguish little grow words from Jesus they don't ascribe things to Jesus they don't simply make things up they don't simply say this is what Jesus says and this is what Jesus sad. What happens is you take for example even the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation can present this vision of Jesus and he gets he's an early Christian problem presents this vision of Jesus with all sorts of words and yet we never get the feeling that he's tempted to rewrite history to place these words in the Book of Revelation on the mouth of the historical Jesus in his Gospel. In other words the early Christian prophets knew the difference and so did the early Christians even Paul himself can say in 1st Corinthians 7 twice I say this not the Lord. They knew the difference between if Jesus said something and if someone else did even someone who was inspired. And they draft those differences and they worked out of those differences to consider this if in fact it is the case that the early Christian prophets are simply ascribing things to Jesus that he never said I would expect to find some things that were some of the issues that Christians were dealing with throughout this era . Ok they were dealing with persecution but of course Jesus addressed this persecution in the Gospels persecution actually predates it as well what unique things happen here say post Pentecost. Was spiritual gifts. To Gentile relationships. Ok missionary journeys but I would guess I'm just going to highlight one of the things women in the church. Think with me for a 2nd here. If the early Christian prophets are making things up that later put on to the lips of Jesus but those things are being generated during this time period I would expect to find Jesus then in the Gospels allegedly speaking to how we should use spiritual guess how Jews and Gentiles should relate to one another and how women should be incorporated in the church. But Jesus never addresses those things. Yet these are the burning issues throughout these days. In other words I think the whole scenario is impossible it's missing some of the telltale signs that we would expect. The 2nd assumption is the assumption I've no initially written records. The critics say that the early followers of Jesus didn't write anything down well this is an assumption it's quite possible that they did not but the fact is they lived in a culture that had highly cultivated memories this was an oral culture and given the fact that it was a rabbinic context the people who followed the rabbis listened very carefully to what the rabbi said in fact it is known today that Rabbi students often did take notes in a sort of shorthand included in observation should be the fact that Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a physician and if in fact these are early apostles of Jesus then we have some reason to think they were they were in the. Habit of taking notes about things no reason to think that there were no written records at all just because they're not preserved we know that it did take place in that culture the people took written records the. Assumption is what I call the so-called bias of the New Testament writers the critics say well how can you trust the New Testament authors the bias they have an agenda they're trying to say Jesus is Lord and so everything that they write is to some selection of ideas to serve that end Well that's true brothers and sisters they were biased and so is everyone no one is without a bias that doesn't mean that it's I'm trustworthy. They claim to have eyewitnesses and they referred to other eyewitnesses as well do you think that someone who was in a nothing concentration camp in Germany should not be trusted really even outside of Germany Palin or somewhere you should you think they should not be trusted because they have a bias. No their testimony needs to be considered alongside other people's testimonies everyone has a bias get over it. The fact is though as I had you in a moment the Gospels came about too early for Legends to accrue. The Gospel written down and produced and distributed too early for significant legends to have actually transpired by that time and I'll explain why that is in a moment I think number d. Is that the critics have a preference for non-canonical writings even when they are later in other words the critics for some strange reason have set skepticism towards the bible that if something is not signed the Bible the bound to give it preference and so they have a preference for non-canonical writings even when there are no good reasons the fact is it's a prejudice on their part point any. Kind of means which means they want to undermine that we liability the Gospels and so they give no room for reasonable harmonization of the different accounts they insist that these are contradictory and they want to undermine the authority of the Bible that number at. The same called anti-Semitism of the New Testament. And this is interesting this is an important thing to keep in mind Matthew when Luke around here at about 8580. Can anyone tell us why that is. They don't know. Because at about $8580.00 there was not it's called the Council of Jamnia. The Council of Gemini was a Jewish Council that actually excommunicated the NASA remains from synagogue. So the stray girls the Christians who alienated in 8085. Were some have said by the Jewish leaders that they decided that Jesus must be upset with them too. And so when they wrote Matthew and Luke especially say Matthew chapter 23 in particular when they wrote Matthew chapter 23 the 7 miles upon the scribes in the thirty's Jesus never spoke those things then made it out because they wanted to have their Lord chewing out the meaning of the Jews who had kicked him out of synagogue. Jesus would never have said anything mean like that. How do they know Jesus would never seen anything mean like that. If Jesus said something mean like that Jesus would simply be following in the traditions of us both brothers consider going back and reading the prophets Jeremiah. My have good things to say about Israel. I don't think it's one enter except in terms of prophecy. The fact is this is what is called critique. From Within. Critique from within. And Jesus we have reason to believe because the 1st century was facing the same type of corruption says in general my is they that Jesus with English will have English in this critique from within and he would have done it as as recorded in passages like Matthew chapter 23 this is not anti-Semitism this is critique from within and it's always ban resident in the people of Israel read the Old Testament you'll see it time and time and time again how they get on themselves to say were wicked where i dollars were you know were immoral and the prophets of course come out very strong on that point. Point number g. . They reject the miracles they reject the miracles. Now today I'm not going to actually respond to the arguments against miracles except to note that they usually come in 3 kinds of of arguments one is a stricken argument where people say that we must study history clinging to what is called the principle of analogy the principle of analogy says what has happened in the past must be like what is happening in the present and then their argument is since we don't see miracles in the present there must not have been any miracles in the past. Some have problems with that principle is it the case that we can say there are no miracles in the present. I don't think so I think we have good reason to believe that miracles have transpired even in our own day even if we don't need to believe every alleged claim to miracles a 2nd kind of argument is a scientific argument scientific argument says that a miracle is a violation of natural law and since natural law cannot be violated we'd therefore know that miracles cannot occur. This view has some assumptions and embedded within it. To say that we know natural law cannot be violated is a question how do we know the natural law cannot be violated but is a miracle really a violation of natural law but that's a question of definition and description but also there is no scientific law that has ruled out the existence of a transcendent God and if in fact we have reason to believe that God exists then we have reason to believe that miracles can occur not necessarily that they do but that they can yes. The principle of analogy the past is like the present rather the present is like the past. The 3rd kind of argument is kind of a series a constellation of philosophical arguments and these arguments such like miracles only occur among among educated people. Is that true. That's not true at all that's just wholly an inaccurate. Well sometimes they'll say well there isn't enough evidence to support miracle claims well how much evidence do you need how much evidence would be sufficient What is the quality of the evidence need to be and usually they propose arbitrary standards that would rule out miracles simply by definition not by investigation another one is whether humans are still going to bed they just listen all these stories and propagate them and humans like stories and I say you know what that's true. That is true humans are deeply gullible especially Christians at times we hear some miracle claim and we just repeat it to other people as though it must be true because they said it. And in light of this what it means is that we have to investigate the exodus and learn to not be gullible look at the facts of the case. Well. Let's talk about the gospels we're moving into the last part of our presentation Let's talk about the canonical Gospels can we read late the Gospels run with these gospels actually Paul notice they put mark out here just before 70 or just after 70 days Matthew when Luke out here 85 and John out here at 90. Can I let me ask you this question. How does the Book of Acts and. You know. It ends talking about one of the Apostles who was it. The apostle Paul and it talks about the Apostle Paul where. He's in Rome. Paris in Moment the end of this this book the book of Acts but does the Book of the acts mention the death of the Apostle Paul. No it doesn't and in fact that's an odd thing because if you read through the book of Acts you see that Luke has a tendency not only to talk about how Christians are persecuted but how Christian leaders are killed. That is his standard course of procedure he mentions how Christians are killed and yet he didn't mention how Pat was killed and Paul was killed in about $6480.00. This gives us reason to to think that the Book of Acts. Was written 364 and I'm just giving you some of the data some of the evidence but we have reason to read the book of Acts is written 374 or 364. And other things he doesn't mention the new running persecution of the mid sixty's he doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem in the 70s he doesn't mention the martyrs of other people like James and Peter both of whom were killed in the sixty's as well. But the talk of facts is the 2nd volume in a 2 volume said you know what the 1st volume is. Yes Is the book of Luke and I would suggest that if we look at the unfolding of events in this 2 volume set called Luke x. We have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke predates the book of Acts how else how how wrong other predating is it I don't know it could have been 6 days it could have been 16 years I just don't knowledge chances are it wasn't 16 years chances are it's closer to 6 months but that's kind of guesswork now that's interesting come back to this q. Document how many of you're familiar with the Q. If you have your let me explain to the rest of you but this is the literary theory that critics have come up with that actually many conservatives hold to this view as well but if you look at men you. And you look at Luke you see that they have certain things in common and some of those things they have in common with Mark and so the theory goes that the Gospel of Mark most likely was a source that was being used by Matthew and Luke but Matthew and Luke have a number of other things in common that they do not have in common with Mark and so they propose another type of document called Q and they believe that Matthew and Luke has employed this other document could have been a written document could be in all documents not in our document that an oral collection of sayings something like that and what I'm going to propose here is this Luke. Apparently used Mark. There's some reason to think that he did use Marquis claims in his 1st chapter the uses of the sources that means that Mark 3 dates the Gospel of Luke which predates the book of Acts which predates the death of Paul in 6480 all of these critics have assumed that miracles don't occur and so they push mark out here to just before or just after 7 in Matthew and Luke out to 85 and beyond and John out to 90 or 12080 some of sad. But there is some way of going back in and refashioning these things looking at them a bit differently yes. Or. No I haven't. You . Or. A number of conservatives are for some type of. A hypothesis and I see no inherent reason to reject it I think there are reasons for considering it though I'm not fully persuaded myself yes. Because the in the German word Kuala they say it's a saying source document and it's just the German said that 1st and they got to come up with the word that used in the field. There are some other arguments from silence that make us think that the New Testament documents and I would propose every single one of them including the Book of Revelation was written priest have any idea that's my opinion the fact is none of them mentions the fall of Jerusalem in 8070 none of them mentions the persecutions of Nero in the mid sixty's none of them mentions the Christian martyrs and Luke has a tendency to note the Christian martyrs as I already mentioned James died about 60 Paul about 64 Peter about 65 they also all these gospel accounts don't deal with many of the later relevant issues such as circumcision of women in ministry gifts of the spirit and such Jew and Gentile relationships but balances to see you look at the Gospel accounts remember this they are writings. They are striking writings which means they necessarily are selective. When you see differences between the Gospel Sometimes it's because they paraphrase things sometimes just because they summarize things sometimes it's because they're not really trying to present a strict chronology. But that was the language Jesus originally spoke most likely. Aramaic that's the language the guy. Those are written in. Greek That means the Gospels are translations of Jesus is saying and translators disagree they're fun translators translate words differently so if you read in the canonical gospels Matthew Mark and Luke and you see saying of Jesus here and saying of Jesus here and say that Matthew was saying look it is a saying in Mark a saying and they don't match up perfectly That's because these people could be summarizing paraphrasing and in the end they're always translating. That helps to explain some of the differences but they had by no means generates what the critics believe are contradictions between these books. Here's a couple concluding thoughts. If you haven't dealt with the critics of the Gospels yet you will. You will deal with them whether on a college campus or in your own home or in your own newspaper or in Time magazine or some other resource. And many Christians are deeply troubled by these higher critics they think they must be right they think wow we can't really trust the Gospels brothers and sisters I can tell you confidently we have answers to their arguments and we have some pretty good ones. Sometimes the answer isn't hard to come by but most of the time they're not all that difficult to come by and they'll yourselves of the literature that I noted earlier the historical reliability of the Gospels by Blomberg his book Jesus in the Gospels as well we only have one copy left in the bookstore and Jesus under fire by Wilkins and Moreland those 3 books I believe would be the best resources for you on this subject thanks for your time today I know that the talk this afternoon wasn't running like the other talks but it's important that you try to remember some of this material because I do believe that you will face these things someday God bless you thank you for your time. Hey thanks for discovering Greeley's number one radio station. LP community. Only Stromboli Colorado's east coast eatery we've added 8 new menu items like the ultimatum loaded with Ham saw me pepperoni provolone meatballs and bacon or manicotti I'll only hand crafted pasta tubes filled with our blender for cottage cheese.